2nd Best candidate in the 1860 Election

[OSR stands with Israel]

They are all terrible but  I would say without hindsight Bell might seem to be the least bad while with Hindsight Douglas is the least worst .


Even without Hindsight Douglas might be the least worst but I’m not sure

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Bell by a hair.

You're right though, every candidate other than Honest Abe was atrocious and all three were among the worst major presidential candidates in history.

[S019]

Bell, easily


Taking no position on slavery is fine, if the alternative is pro-slavery, but Lincoln is obviously the best, for being anti-slavery, and it is not even close (though William Seward would have been even better)


Also after the war, I would be a Radical Republican, and would fully support Reconstruction

Bell by a hair.

You're right though, every candidate other than Honest Abe was atrocious and all three were among the worst major presidential candidates in history.

There is an argument that McClellan, Buchanan, and Pierce, are worse than Bell, but Douglas' popular sovereignty position was really just a "nice way" (if this is how you say it, just to clarify, Douglas was atrocious) of being pro-slavery, as he wanted to give it the opportunity to expand North of the 36-30 line, Breckinridge was beyond atrocious, and wanted to expand slavery to all of the territories. Breckinridge is the worst in any election, all time, and by far, the worst, in this one

Who voted for Breckinridge

Reveal yourself, racist

They are all terrible but  I would say without hindsight Bell might seem to be the least bad while with Hindsight Douglas is the least worst .


Even without Hindsight Douglas might be the least worst but I’m not sure

With hindsight, Douglas is terrible, as he dies, just months into the Presidency, and we get President Herschel Johnson, which is only slightly better than Breckinridge, but way, way, way worse than Douglas

[OSR stands with Israel]

^^ Yellowhammer is probably the one who voted for Breckinridge

[S019]

^^ Yellowhammer is probably the one who voted for Breckinridge

That's my guess

[OSR stands with Israel]

^^ Yellowhammer is probably the one who voted for Breckinridge

That's my guess

If not probably some troll

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Taking no position on slavery is fine

The word you're looking for is "impossible." By 1860, taking no further action with regard to slavery meant accepting Scott v. Sanford as settled law and allowing slavery to expand westward unmolested. Bell was a moderate on secession, not on slavery: it's not incidental that he joined the Confederacy almost immediately after Fort Sumter fell.

While Douglas fully earned his place in Hell with his actions in the 1850s, the Freeport Doctrine at least permitted the de facto (if not de jure) exclusion of slavery from the North and West—even considering Douglas' death in 1861, he's clearly the better option compared to the two Confederate slaveholders.

[S019]

Taking no position on slavery is fine

The word you're looking for is "impossible." By 1860, taking no further action with regard to slavery meant accepting Scott v. Sanford as settled law and allowing slavery to expand westward unmolested. Bell was a moderate on secession, not on slavery: it's not incidental that he joined the Confederacy almost immediately after Fort Sumter fell.

While Douglas fully earned his place in Hell with his actions in the 1850s, the Freeport Doctrine at least permitted the de facto (if not de jure) exclusion of slavery from the North and West—even considering Douglas' death in 1861, he's clearly the better option compared to the two Confederate slaveholders.

Truman, the Constitutional Unionists took no position on slavery, and wanted to keep the Union together


Also one thing that always interested me is how did Breckinridge change from a moderate to a Fire Eater, by the end of the 1860 campaign

[Mr. Smith]

Douglas and it isn't even close.

[Intell]

Republicans>Democrats>Whigs>Southern Democrats

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

^^ Yellowhammer is probably the one who voted for Breckinridge

I'm pretty sure he would think Breckenridge is the best candidate over all, not second best.

[Continential]

Republicans>Democrats>Whigs>Southern Democrats

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Gerrit Smith, I guess?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Taking no position on slavery is fine

The word you're looking for is "impossible." By 1860, taking no further action with regard to slavery meant accepting Scott v. Sanford as settled law and allowing slavery to expand westward unmolested. Bell was a moderate on secession, not on slavery: it's not incidental that he joined the Confederacy almost immediately after Fort Sumter fell.

While Douglas fully earned his place in Hell with his actions in the 1850s, the Freeport Doctrine at least permitted the de facto (if not de jure) exclusion of slavery from the North and West—even considering Douglas' death in 1861, he's clearly the better option compared to the two Confederate slaveholders.

Truman, the Constitutional Unionists took no position on slavery, and wanted to keep the Union together


Also one thing that always interested me is how did Breckinridge change from a moderate to a Fire Eater, by the end of the 1860 campaign

No. The Constitutional Union party campaigned on maintaining "the Constitution as it is and the Union as it is" —i.e. with slavery. That's not "taking no position." They may have been less bellicose than Breckinridge, but no Southerner who voted for the Constitutional Union slate doubted John Bell would veto the Wilmot Proviso or a bill to overturn Dred Scott if one should arrive on his desk.

The 1860 election was not fought over the future of slavery itself, but over the future of slavery in the territories. No candidate for president could avoid taking a position on this issue: you were either for allowing slavery to spread to new states in the West, or you were not. Promising to take no new action on slavery and maintain the status quo is in effect to adopt the former position, because the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Supreme Court's ruling in Scott v. Sanford meant there was no such thing as a free state anymore. Inaction meant tacitly supporting the Westward expansion of slavery, a reality everyone was well aware of—hence why Bell was so popular in the South but received hardly any votes north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Put it another way: imagine an alien warship landed in Times Square and commenced the conquest of the United States a few weeks before the Iowa Caucus. With their superior technology, they soon gain the upper hand. Some of the candidates say we should fight the aliens; others say we should accept them as liberators. If one of the candidates announced he will take no position, but instead campaign only for national unity, what side is he tacitly supporting?

[Former President tack50]

WI: Lincoln

Obviously with hindsight is easy, but if I was there at the time I imagine I would have been "avoid war and secession at all costs", and from my understanding the candidate that promised that was Bell?.

[OSR stands with Israel]

WI: Lincoln

Obviously with hindsight is easy, but if I was there at the time I imagine I would have been "avoid war and secession at all costs", and from my understanding the candidate that promised that was Bell?.

He's the best

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

Bell.

Lincoln > Bell > Douglas > Breckenridge

[Kingpoleon]

Bell - everyone expected him to support the Union, and it’s truly shocking he didn’t. I would rather have supported Sam Houston, John McLean, John Crittenden, or Edward Everett. It’s truly surprising that a nobody from Tennessee beat four big players in politics - granted, if Crittenden had wanted the nomination, it would have been his, but still.

[All Along The Watchtower]

William Seward

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Douglas.  Popular sovereignty is bad, but most new states would vote against slavery anyway.

[Peanut]

Douglas, who, while being absolutely vile himself, was better than Bell by a little and better than Breckinridge by a lot. I do think people are voting Bell based on a misconstruction of his policies and the time's situation, to be honest.

[lfromnj]

Why isn't Lincoln an option?

Seriously though should be an option even if he was the best option.

[Canis]

Douglas.  Popular sovereignty is bad, but most new states would vote against slavery anyway.

Pretty much this Bell joined the confederacy and I think its quite clear he was pro slavery he just tried to hide it honestly
Lincoln >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Douglas >> Bell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Breckenridge

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

One of the funniest stories about Bell is how he walked back into the offices of his old Whig allies in the middle of the Civil War and pathetically complained that his "old friends" hadn't gone to see his pro-Confederate speech at Knoxville. Unfortunately for him, his old ally (and notorious headcase) William Brownlow was also there, and in response to Bell's arrival launched into a furious and profane tirade at his old friend (Brownlow had even named his son after Bell), a verbal smackdown that was apparently so brutal Bell immediately left in tears and seemingly left political life for good.

[TDAS04]

Douglas was against secession, so probably him.